> Hrm, no that was Bruce, not me. Sorry. :) Ok Bruce you then please. :)
> Sure. About that code protection.... I would prefer that we keep some > semblance of copyleft, as stinky as that may smell to the more > Windowsy/Businessy people. If it comes down to it, I could deal with > MPL. A mixed license system of some sort would be nice too, maybe a > mix of GPL/MPL? I think its great that we are opening up now more as to WHAT we want from a license rather then WHICH we want. I think this will be much more constructive. My personal opinions (others weigh in of your own please): Copyright: Im fine with enforcing copyright, and even attribution. That is inline with Creative Commons, IX?, BSD, etc. Copyleft: For those not versed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft Im ok (again not my first preference, but Im ok with it) with a license that says "Hey, we wrote this. We gave it to the community and we want it to be free. If you change it, what you change has to be given back to the community". But if someone wants to just use the code as is - and link to it, either code wise (compile in, static) or dynamically (library) I don't think they should have to give away their source code and use MY license. Commercial usage of stuff is every bit as valid and vital to adoption as is open source. In my experience, MOST people will still make open source. But there are lots of commercial uses where giving out source code just isn't a viable business model - ESPECIALLY if we are to say software patents are bad (I don't think they are bad, I think they are evil) then we should allow some protection. There are many commercial examples of usage of open source libraries successfully while still retaining credit to the libraries authors and often with some contributions back to it as well. Should every prescription drug you buy be required to include the exact formula and production instructions? Should every prepackaged food you buy be required to include not just ingredients but the recipe too? I do believe in IP protection - but do not extend this to believe that I support DRM, and what many call "IP protection". After all, even GPL and LGPL and the like are all "IP protection" of sorts. Think of Mono. If it was GPL - well it would be DOA and almost not used. Its LGPL. The compilers are GPL - but the distinction is clear. But I think that actually hinders usage a bit... We might have better dev tools if others could reuse that code more freely instead of just calling it as an app..... ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ SharpOS-Developers mailing list SharpOS-Developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sharpos-developers
